Why do Neocons hate LewRockwell.com?

[QuickZ06]

Well this thread is interesting.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

And what of the period of nearly half a century between 1865 and 1913? Yes, Lincoln 'set precedents', but no, Lincoln did not set precedents. What Lincoln did he did during wartime. It took Constitutional amendments to enable Wilson to get away with it during peace time.

Lincoln was in an unenviable situation. He was sworn in as president of a nation with 33 states, and he wanted to leave office with 33 states (at least) in the Union. It's understandable. Was that goal worth the lives lost? Many believe so. Many don't.

Slavery was reprehensible. In the Age of Enlightenment, it had to go. The issue was coming to a head. Lincoln wouldn't have won the election if it weren't.

Why do neocons hate that site? It makes people think? It exposes neocons as something other than conservative? It has no respect for conventionality, which is something conservatives are known to value? It displays all the sensitivity and tact of a badger? I don't know. But I do know this: If I had a time machine and the ability to torpedo a historical political career in it's infancy, my target would be Wilson, not Lincoln.

With regard to what? Are you asking me if noone else contributed to the problem? If so, of course. Every president thus far has been awful. Lincoln especially so though, because whenever something like states' rights comes up, the typical answer (even from learned folks who should know better) is "that was settled by the civil war". The reason Lincoln's face is on Mt Rushmore is because his presidency was pivitol in the course of history. Wilson is somewhat more relevant to our current situation and his role obviously can't be ignored. Were it not for the house and senate banking committees, Wilson couldn't have created the bank. Lincoln acted much more unilaterally/dictator-like, so he wins worst of the two IMO. Remember also that banking interests like Rockefeller and Aldrich were making things happen behind the scenes in congress in ~1913.

ETA: the Age Of Enlightenment had ended ~50 years before Lincoln's regime (depending on which historian you ask), so I don't understand the connection you're trying to make there. Explain, plz?

 

[Ender]

"The importance of the Civil War for America's elite structure was the commanding position that the new industrial capitalists won during the course of the struggle. . . . The economic transformation of the United States from an agricultural to an industrial nation reached the crescendo of a revolution in the second half of the nineteenth century."

"Civil War profits compounded the capital of the industrialists and placed them in a position to dominate the economic life of the nation. Moreover, when the Southern planters were removed from the national scene, the government in Washington became the exclusive domain of the new industrial leaders."

"[T]he industrial elites saw no objection to legislation if it furthered their success in business. Unrestricted competition might prove who was the fittest, but as an added precaution to insure that the industrial capitalists themselves emerged as the fittest, these new elites also insisted upon government subsidies, patents, tariffs, loans, and massive giveaways of land and other natural resources."

"The Irony of Democracy" by Thomas R. Dye & T. Harmon Zeigler

 

[Ender]

From the book, Origins of the American Civil War, by Brian Holden Reid, chapter 8, pg. 314:

"...In January 1860 northern public opinion, in so far as it can be measured, seemed to smile on the Crittenden Compromise. In New York City alone 63,000 people signed a petition supporting the passage of the Compromise. A further petition included another 14,000 female signatures. St. Louis addressed to the president a list of names 100 pages long shrouded in an American flag. Business in the north eastern states quivered at the thought of losing $150 million in southern debts let alone double that sum lost in lucrative business with the South. Wall Street feared the onset of 'creeping economic paralysis'. "

 

[Ender]

Lincoln’s letter to Horace Greeley dated August 22, 1862:

"I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views."

 

[Ender]

"That either the revenue from duties must be collected in the ports of the rebel states, or the port must be closed to importations from abroad, is generally admitted. If neither of these things be done, our revenue laws are substantially repealed; the sources which supply our treasury will be dried up; we shall have no money to carry on the government; the nation will become bankrupt before the next crop of corn is ripe. There will be nothing to furnish means of subsistence to the army; nothing to keep our navy afloat; nothing to pay the salaries of public officers; the present order of things must come to a dead stop.

"What, then, is left for our government? Shall we let the seceding states repeal the revenue laws for the whole Union in this manner? Or will the government choose to consider all foreign commerce destined for those ports where we have no custom-houses and no collectors as contraband, and stop it, when offering to enter the collection districts from which our authorities have been expelled. "The New York Evening Post, March 2, 1861.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Lincoln’s letter to Horace Greeley dated August 22, 1862:

"I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views."

+rep for bringing that out of the memory hole.

 

[Ender]

And, speaking of Lew Rockwell, here is Lew & the Judge:

NAPOLITANO: You know, Lincoln did a lot of horrible things during the Civil War and, as a result of much of what he did, it is now estimated that about 750,000 Americans lost their lives. But one of the things that he did was to incarcerate people without trial. He suspended the writ of habeas corpus.

And in a famous decision after Lincoln was dead, the Supreme Court, half of which he had appointed, said the Constitution applies in good times and in bad, for rulers and for ruled, for those in office and those who are not in office, for Americans and for non-Americans. There is no exception to its protections for bad times.

How easily those who love and praise Lincoln seem to forget this rebuke by his own Supreme Court. It's a famous case – anybody can read it – called In Re Milligan, which stands for the proposition that there is no exception to the Constitution. It protects all persons who come in contract with the government, whether they're Americans in Yemen or Americans in Yosemite. But the government doesn't like to follow these rules that are obstacles to its totalitarian ways.

ROCKWELL: Under Lincoln, there were actually people arrested and jailed without trial for the crime of being present when Lincoln's policies were criticized and not defending them.

NAPOLITANO: Right. Right. He, of course, jailed newspaper publishers who disagreed with him. But this jailing people who failed to defend him, of course, was absurd. I mean, he was a tyrant and a dictator.

But not to dwell too much on history, he was severely and soundly and roundly rebuked by this In Re Milligan decision, which, of course, resulted in freeing thousands of people who were still in jail in 1866, a year after Lincoln had died and a year after the peace had come to pass between the North and the South. These people were still in jail. This is the Andrew Johnson administration now before the Supreme Court that Lincoln had appointed.

So, look, it demonstrates the point that, on paper, judges have steadfastly ruled that the Constitution applies to every human being who comes in contact with the government under every circumstance.

 

[itshappening]

I told you it would get to 10 + pages with Trav finding the thread.. I'm surprised he hasn't started pasting the constitutions yet to "prove" his point.

Please donate to Lewrockwell.com and keep annoying people like Trav!

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I told you it would get to 10 + pages with Trav finding the thread.. I'm surprised he hasn't started pasting the constitutions yet to "prove" his point.

Please donate to Lewrockwell.com and keep annoying people like Trav!

Will do! Freedom FTW!

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Truth will prevail, if only in the minds of the honest and fearless. Thank you, guys, for defending the truth: Lincoln was a mass-murdering monster. Lew Rockwell is a hero and a stalwart. Yipping dogs will yip, but the great caravan of liberty moves forward. Critics(such as SPLC, the neo-cons, and those in this thread), so easily shown to be ignorant, will not hinder it in the least.

Carry on, men. And long live Lew Rockwell.

 

[Travlyr]

Truth will prevail, if only in the minds of the honest and fearless. Thank you, guys, for defending the truth: Lincoln was a mass-murdering monster. Lew Rockwell is a hero and a stalwart. Yipping dogs will yip, but the great caravan of liberty moves forward. Critics(such as SPLC, the neo-cons, and those in this thread), so easily shown to be ignorant, will not hinder it in the least.

Carry on, men. And long live Lew Rockwell.

The truth will prevail. Lincoln was not only not a mass murdering monster he was not even an aggressor. He was a defender of truth, law, and justice. Lincoln had sworn an oath on the Bible to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. That he did and God knows it.

"In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend it."

Not one of you dumbed down libertarians can answer the question: "What would you have done on March 4, 1861 if elected president of the United States of America?" And not one of you can demonstrate any aggressive act Lincoln committed to any human being prior to April 12, 1861. I used to believe that most of the people on this forum were hard working truth seekers, but your attitudes toward Lincoln demonstrates that you neither love liberty for everyone, nor do you do your own history homework. I suspect it is because you don't have the literacy level to read Mises or Lincoln's own words yourself therefore you must rely on Rothbard and DiLorenzo to interpret for you.

Someday you will know that the pre-Civil War Abraham Lincoln was a peaceful man of honor because the Internet is the truth machine. The truth will prevail.

 

[Anti-Neocon]

To those who disagree with Travlyr, can you please explain why? I've been trying to follow this, and I only really see one side being articulated, and that's Travlyr's. I don't doubt that there are arguments on the other side but for the unaware such as myself, I'd just like to see them.

 

[Travlyr]

-- Reflections --

Lincoln Provoked the War

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Southern leaders of the Civil War period placed the blame for the outbreak of fighting squarely on Lincoln. They accused the President of acting aggressively towards the South and of deliberately provoking war in order to overthrow the Confederacy. For its part, the Confederacy sought a peaceable accommodation of its legitimate claims to independence, and resorted to measures of self-defence only when threatened by Lincoln's coercive policy. Thus, Confederate vice president, Alexander H. Stephens, claimed that the war was "inaugurated by Mr. Lincoln." Stephens readily acknowledged that General Beauregard's troops fired the "first gun." But, he argued, the larger truth is that "in personal or national conflicts, it is not he who strikes the first blow, or fires the first gun that inaugurates or begins the conflict." Rather, the true aggressor is "the first who renders force necessary."

Stephens identified the beginning of the war as Lincoln's order sending a "hostile fleet, styled the 'Relief Squadron'," to reinforce Fort Sumter. "The war was then and there inaugurated and begun by the authorities at Washington. General Beauregard did not open fire upon Fort Sumter until this fleet was, to his knowledge, very near the harbor of Charleston, and until he had inquired of Major Anderson . . . whether he would engage to take no part in the expected blow, then coming down upon him from the approaching fleet . . . When Major Anderson . . .would make no such promise, it became necessary for General Beauregard to strike the first blow, as he did; otherwise the forces under his command might have been exposed to two fires at the same time-- one in front, and the other in the rear." The use of force by the Confederacy , therefore, was in "self-defence," rendered necessary by the actions of the other side.

Jefferson Davis, who, like Stephens, wrote his account after the Civil War, took a similar position. Fort Sumter was rightfully South Carolina's property after secession, and the Confederate government had shown great "forbearance" in trying to reach an equitable settlement with the federal government. But the Lincoln administration destroyed these efforts by sending "a hostile fleet" to Sumter. "The attempt to represent us as the aggressors," Davis argued, "is as unfounded as the complaint made by the wolf against the lamb in the familiar fable. He who makes the assault is not necessarily he that strikes the first blow or fires the first gun."

From Davis's point of view, to permit the strengthening of Sumter, even if done in a peaceable manner, was unacceptable. It meant the continued presence of a hostile threat to Charleston. Further, although the ostensible purpose of the expedition was to resupply, not reinforce the fort, the Confederacy had no guarantee that Lincoln would abide by his word. And even if he restricted his actions to resupply in this case, what was to prevent him from attempting to reinforce the fort in the future? Thus, the attack on Sumter was a measure of "defense." To have acquiesced in the fort's relief, even at the risk of firing the first shot, "would have been as unwise as it would be to hesitate to strike down the arm of the assailant, who levels a deadly weapon at one's breast, until he has actually fired."

In the twentieth century, this critical view of Lincoln's actions gained a wide audience through the writings of Charles W. Ramsdell and others. According to Ramsdell, the situation at Sumter presented Lincoln with a series of dilemmas. If he took action to maintain the fort, he would lose the border South and a large segment of northern opinion which wanted to conciliate the South. If he abandoned the fort, he jeopardized the Union by legitimizing the Confederacy. Lincoln also hazarded losing the support of a substantial portion of his own Republican Party, and risked appearing a weak and ineffective leader.

Lincoln could escape these predicaments, however, if he could induce southerners to attack Sumter, "to assume the aggressive and thus put themselves in the wrong in the eyes of the North and of the world." By sending a relief expedition, ostensibly to provide bread to a hungry garrison, Lincoln turned the tables on the Confederates, forcing them to choose whether to permit the fort to be strengthened, or to act as the aggressor. By this "astute strategy," Lincoln maneuvered the South into firing the first shot.

Bibliography: Stephens, Constitutional View, 2: 35-41; Davis, Rise and Fall, 1: 289-95; Ramsdell, "Lincoln and Fort Sumter,"pp. 259-88.

http://www.tulane.edu/~sumter/Reflections/LinWar.html

Thanks for posting this. This has to be one of the most twisted views of self-defense I have ever read in my life. To summarize: "We had to fire upon a virtually defenseless fort of 86 Union men who were running out of supplies for 34 hours because it is our fort now and if we don't take it now then the Union will likely resupply it later.

Stephens readily acknowledged that General Beauregard's troops fired the "first gun." But, he argued, the larger truth is that "in personal or national conflicts, it is not he who strikes the first blow, or fires the first gun that inaugurates or begins the conflict." Rather, the true aggressor is "the first who renders force necessary."

Yet, just 4 months earlier, they fired upon an unarmed merchant ship (Star of the West) delivering food and supplies to the same fort under President Buchanan. So that should have been Buchanan's fault but it's not. It is Lincoln's fault. It is amazing the degree of denial people will go to justify their actions. Yeah, we fired cannons at an unarmed merchant ship in self-defense. Yeah, we bombed the hell out of Major Anderson and his troops for 34 hours in self-defense. Yeah, we killed Elmer Ellsworth when he took the Confederate flag down but in self-defense. He had no right to take that flag down. Pathetic justification. It is all Lincoln's fault.

Fine man that Alexander Stephens guy was. The great truth-telling defender of liberty for the white guy.

Excerpt from Cornerstone Speech

Alexander H. Stephens
March 21, 1861
Savannah, Georgia

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

To those who disagree with Travlyr, can you please explain why? I've been trying to follow this, and I only really see one side being articulated, and that's Travlyr's. I don't doubt that there are arguments on the other side but for the unaware such as myself, I'd just like to see them.

No one disagrees with Travlyr, atleast I know I don't. Travlyr has no reasonable and coherent position worth disagreeing with. He seems to somehow be pro- Lincoln, in a cartoonish and over-the-top way which is so far from any reality or recent scholarship on the matter it is not even worth addressing. His view is not interfacing with reality. He is on his own plane of existence. We cannot interface with him. And there is no reason to try.

If you want to know about Lincoln, just do some research.

 

[green73]

I wonder if he's a paid troll or just insane.

 

[Ender]

The truth will prevail. Lincoln was not only not a mass murdering monster he was not even an aggressor. He was a defender of truth, law, and justice. Lincoln had sworn an oath on the Bible to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. That he did and God knows it.



Not one of you dumbed down libertarians can answer the question: "What would you have done on March 4, 1861 if elected president of the United States of America?" And not one of you can demonstrate any aggressive act Lincoln committed to any human being prior to April 12, 1861. I used to believe that most of the people on this forum were hard working truth seekers, but your attitudes toward Lincoln demonstrates that you neither love liberty for everyone, nor do you do your own history homework. I suspect it is because you don't have the literacy level to read Mises or Lincoln's own words yourself therefore you must rely on Rothbard and DiLorenzo to interpret for you.

Someday you will know that the pre-Civil War Abraham Lincoln was a peaceful man of honor because the Internet is the truth machine. The truth will prevail.

Talk about dumbed down- any self respecting libertarian would never have had to deal with April 12th, 1861.

In the first place, there would have been no outrageous tariffs inflicted on the South so that the South would probably never have wanted to secede in the first place.

Second, if the South still wanted to leave, a libertarian would have allowed it- you know, Constitution and all?

Third, a true libertarian would not have used slavery as an excuse to kill 100's of 1000's of people in order to strengthen and secure the government hold on money and profit. The reason slavery was not allowed to go west was NOT altruistic; it was because of the hatred Lincoln and others had for the blacks. They didn't want them dirty inferior "niggahs" to mix with the superior intelligent white folk.

Fort Sumter was a set up to give the Northern aggression credence.

The War Between the States was about MONEY and your hero was at the helm of that.

 

[green73]

The main reason they didn't want slavery in the West is because those states would end up siding with South and shift the balance in Congress.

 

[Travlyr]

First of all Lincoln is not my hero. He is getting trashed by liars who revise history. I am simply defending him against unethical people who trash others reputation with lies to further their own agenda.

Talk about dumbed down- any self respecting libertarian would never have had to deal with April 12th, 1861.

So you would have what? Given Fort Sumter to South Carolina? Do you think you might have run into some problems with the people who had elected you as president? I don't think Lincoln really had that option.

In the first place, there would have been no outrageous tariffs inflicted on the South so that the South would probably never have wanted to secede in the first place.

"The Morrill Tariff of 1861 was an American protective tariff law adopted on March 2, 1861 during the Buchanan Administration and signed into law by President James Buchanan, a Democrat."

But that's Lincoln's fault.

Second, if the South still wanted to leave, a libertarian would have allowed it- you know, Constitution and all?

The South seceded, by their own secession statements, in order to "preserve the blessings of African slavery." Lincoln said in his First Inaugural Address. I'm paraphrasing here: That is just fine. Just don't shoot at us. Don't become the aggressor, but we are also not going to nationalize slavery. The free states can remain free as long as they wish. However, if you take your slaves into a free state and they get captured, then you will have to abide by the laws of the state you were in. For example, the State of Illinois would let slave owners travel through the state but if the Slave Master lingered or made the slaves work in Illinois, then abolitionists would set them free and Illinois State law would back them up.

Third, a true libertarian would not have used slavery as an excuse to kill 100's of 1000's of people in order to strengthen and secure the government hold on money and profit. The reason slavery was not allowed to go west was NOT altruistic; it was because of the hatred Lincoln and others had for the blacks. They didn't want them dirty inferior "niggahs" to mix with the superior intelligent white folk.

This ^^ demonstrates a lack of historical knowledge. You are going to have to hit the history books before I address such nonsense.

Fort Sumter was a set up to give the Northern aggression credence.

Yeah... yeah. It is okay, for libertarians, to fire on unarmed men for the cause of liberty.

The War Between the States was about MONEY and your hero was at the helm of that.

Right it was about money. Slavery was at the heart of money for the South. They clearly stated that in their secession statements. No doubt the Northerners saw profit from a war economy as well.

 

[Travlyr]

Lincoln’s letter to Horace Greeley dated August 22, 1862:

"I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views."

And when one uses ethics in writing then the true intent surfaces. Taking quotes out-of-context is a favorite of unethical liars. Here is the letter in its entirety.

Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.

Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.

I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.

As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.

Yours,
A. Lincoln.

"I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free." A. Lincoln

Why oh why would somebody leave that last sentence out when misquoting Lincoln? Because it doesn't fit their agenda.